FWIW we have several places where the obvious local name shadows a core function - so the existing behavior is both desirable (IMO) and in existing production usage. I would not want to see that changed :)
Eastwood seems like the correct place for this (Eastwood has continued to detect bugs in our code and peculiarities - that are not bugs but should be rewritten for clarity - so I'd heartily recommend it to everyone). Sean On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Andy Fingerhut <andy.finger...@gmail.com> wrote: > This would be an appropriate kind of check for a lint tool like Eastwood to > make, and warn about. It currently does not do so, but I've created an issue > to remind me of the potential enhancement. [1] > > It is up to the Clojure core team to decide whether they would like to make > such a change to the Clojure compiler itself. My guess is that since this is > legal Clojure code, and sometimes people do this in their code intentionally > (i.e. use let-bound names that happen to match Var names in clojure.core and > other namespaces), they might prefer _not_ to have the compiler issue such a > warning. Note these words: "my guess". I have no inside knowledge here. > > Andy > > [1] https://github.com/jonase/eastwood/issues/81 >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
